On the road Part II

Got a breather in my travels, and I found this GEM on Fox News, from the inestimable Charles Krauthammer, commenting on the egregious Major Hasan:

“I was a psychiatrist. I can’t remember a single instance of a psychiatrist who went around shooting people. Maybe I missed the epidemic. But all of a sudden if the shooter is called Nidal Hasan, all of a sudden everybody invents this secondary post-traumatic stress syndrome which had never existed until yesterday.”

I couldn’t agree more. Dr. Krauthammer specifically mentions earlier in his commentary the innumerable other psychiatrists, physical therapists, counselors, ad nauseam, who hear tales that would curdle your morning latte and they never snapped. But if a Muslim does this, we are suddenly supposed to excuse his outburst?

NO ONE in the military that I ever knew or know now has a word to say in favor of Lieutenant William Calley, the infamous and disgusting perpetrator of the slaughter at My Lai in Vietnam. He’d seen terrible things, had had terrible things done to his troops. He snapped. So what is the difference between these two pieces of shit? One is Muslim. A follower of the religion of peace. And therefore above the opprobrium which is (rightfully) heaped on Calley? Nice double standard.

OK, a free linguistics lesson, kids. Why do people say “Islam is the religion of peace”? Linguistics. Most Arabic words can be reduced to a two- or three-syllable root. In the case of “Islam”, this root is the same root that goes into the word “Salaam”, or “peace.” (Hebrew renders it as “Shalom.”) So the untutored render the two words, “Islam” and “Salaam”, as intertwined. Gotcha. Just as “jihad” (holy war”) and “ijtihad” (struggling against the baser parts of oneself) are mentioned in the same breath, making “jihad” as harmless as giving up bad personal or spiritual habits one happens to have.

This misconception causes people to urge everyone to understand Islam is the Religion of Peace, when linguistics and common sense would tend to argue against it. I have seen stories of Hindu mobs raging against Muslim (and Christian) congregants in India, yet these are horrible and thankfully isolated circumstances. Hindus in Australia do not, to my knowledge, urge their coreligionists to slaughter non-Hindus. Christians do not, as a rule of religion, urge each other to slaughter Muslims, Hindus, or Jews. Did they use to? Sure. Was it horrible and inexcusable? Absolutely. Yet in the US, criticism, opprobrium, ridicule and even anger are heaped on Christians (and to some extent, Jews) by the mainstream culture without fear of reprisal. Why?

Because Christians and Jews don’t overreact, shoot everyone in sight, detonate suicide vests, nor do they drive an old Chrysler LeBaron into the local green grocer’s and detonate 300 pounds’ worth of explosives. Who does? Muslims. And if not specifically, who are we afraid would do that? Here’s a hint: they aren’t Rosicrucians.

This is in no way to denigrate Muslims. But every single significant attack over the past twenty years (from the Marine Barracks murder of 241 good men to the USS Cole to the first and second World Trade Center attacks to the London Underground bombings to the Bali bombing to the Khobar Towers bombing to the innumerable rocket and missile attacks on civilians in Israel) has one common basis: the Religion of Peace.

Salman Rushdie could have saved himself a lot of pain and expense if he’d denigrated Catholicism instead of Islam in “The Satanic Verses.”But he would have gotten a lot less publicity. Bill Maher “bravely” stands up against Christianity every time he can because he knows one thing: Christians aren’t going to come after him. We pray for him. We ask God to open his eyes and his heart. But we won’t go after him physically. Why?

Two reasons:
1. God asks us to forgive those who would treat us like that;
2. Bill Maher ain’t worth the effort. Come on, if he weren’t loaded, would ANY Playboy Bunny (and they aren’t exactly known for their mental acuity) be seen in public with him?

So we have Major Hasan, who is alleged to have reached out to Al Qaeda, and the MSM is supposedly worried about an anti-Islamic backlash? That’s like breaking open a beehive and worrying about a backlash from peanut-butter manufacturers. We need a re-focusing of our attention in America, and stop pussy-footing around the irrefutable connection between Islam and terror. This isn’t a condemnation of Muslims, but to say there is no connection because all Muslims are not radical is specious at best, and lethal at worst.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: